Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 17.07.2013, 18:13 -0300 schrieb Raúl Benencia:
> I've updated the document with your advises. It'll be great to read your
> opinions. Remember I'm not a native english speaker, so it would be awesome
> if someone wants to double check the grammar.
It’s good so far, but if you insist I’ll add my language style related
comments.
> | == Package naming convention ==
> | As it is usual with Debian packages, the source and binary package names
> | derive from the upstream software name. This team uses the following
> | convention for naming its packages:
^ I’d say “we” or put this in the passive form; the policy applies to
all Haskell packages, not just those by the team.
> | 1. All characters are lower-cased.
> | 2. Underscores are turned into dashes.
> | 3. If upstream name contains a ''haskell-'' or similar component, it will
> | be dropped only if it refers to how the software is implemented
> | (e.g. haskell-cnc and other). It should be kept if the library works
> | ''on'' haskell (e.g. haskell-docs, haskell-packages etc.).
> |
> | There are three kind of packages maintained by this team:
> | 1. Applications
> | 2. Libraries
> | 3. Source packages that produces applications and library binary packages
> |
> | For the first group, the convention is to name the source and binary
> | packages with the upstream software name.
> |
> | For the second group, the convention is to name the source package with
> | "haskell-<upstream>", and the library binary packages with
> | libghc-<upstream>-(dev|doc|prof).
> |
> | For the third group, the convention depends on the software. If it is
> | primarily an application that happens to build a library, then it shall be
^ as well
> | treated it like the first group, naming the source package and the
> | application binary package with the upstream name, and the library binary
> | packages with the convention used by the second group (e.g. agda,
> | xmonad). If it is primarily a library with some helper commands, then it
> | shall be treated it like the second group, naming the application binary
> | package with the convention used by the first group.
> |
> | In all cases, care should be taken when the upstream name is generic. For
> | example, if the Diff package would provide a binary, the source package
> | should still be "haskell-diff" or something similar in order to avoid name
> | clashes with the main archive.
Great! Feel free to push it to the policy repository.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part